Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout05/08/2007B A K E R S F I E L D Staff: John W. Stinson City Council Members: Assistant City Manager Sue Benham, Chair David Couch Jacquie Sullivan Regular Meeting of the LEGISLATIVE AND LITIGATION COMMITTEE of the City Council -City of Bakersfield Tuesday, May 8, 2007 1:00 p.m. City Manager's Conference Room City Hall, 1501 Truxtun Avenue -Suite 201, Bakersfield, CA AGENDA 1. ROLL CALL 2. ADOPT APRIL 10, 2007 MINUTES 3. PUBLIC STATEMENTS 4. NEW BUSINESS A. Discussion regarding marketing annexation benefits -Tandy B. Discussion regarding plastic shopping bags -Tandy / Kirkwood 5. COMMITTEE COMMENTS 6. ADJOURNMENT • DRAFT B A K E R S F I E L D Sue Benham, Chair Ch stine Butterfiel ,Assistant City Manager David Couch For: Alan Tandy, City Manager Jacquie Sullivan MINUTES LEGISLATIVE AND LITIGATION COMMITTEE MEETING Tuesday, April 10, 2007 -1:00 p.m. City Manager's Conference Room -Suite 201 City Hall, 1501 Truxtun Avenue, Bakersfield, CA The meeting was called to order at 1:07 p.m. ROLL CALL Present: Council member Sue Benham; Chair Council member David Couch Absent: Council member Jacquie Sullivan Staff present: City Manager, Alan Tandy .City Attorney, Ginny Gennaro Assistant City Manager, Christine Butterfield Management Assistant, Rick Kirkwood Associate Attorneys, Helena Rho and Andrew Whang Bakersfield Police Department, Captain Bob Bivens Others present: City Auto Group Inc., Jerry Armstrong and Bart Nieland 2. ADOPT MARCH 6, 2007 MINUTES Adopted as submitted. 3. PUBLIC STATEMENTS Bart Nieland of the City Auto Group Inc., stated that he would like a modification to the Sign Ordinance for temporary signage at auto dealerships. The Committee could not address this matter at this time, being that it was not on the agenda. Committee Chair stated that the item could be placed on the agenda for the meeting of Tuesday, May 8, 2007 at 1:00 p.m. City Attorney Gennaro stated this matter should be referred to the Planning and Development Committee, being that they are currently dealing with this issue on another matter. AGENDA SUMMARY REPORT LEGISLATIVE AND LITIGATION COMMITTEE MEETING Tuesday, April 10, 2007 Page 2 Per the Brown Act, two different committees cannot discuss the same topic. Mr. Nieland was informed of the Planning and Development Committee meeting, scheduled for Thursday, May 3, 2007 at 1:00 p.m. 4. DEFERRED BUSINESS a. Update on Veterans Parking -Police Department /City Attorney City Attorney Gennarro gave a brief overview in response to Mr. Leon Thomas' request to research the issue. Much research has been conducted by the City Attorney's office on this matter, and if the City Council and Legislative and Litigation Committee would like to pursue this issue, modifications may be made to the current ordinance. There is a similar ordinance in the City of Culver City, but veteran's parking is limited to "On-Street Metered Parking" and does not pertain to general public parking areas. There is no metered parking in Bakersfield, all of the parking at City facilities is free, and the airport is in the County. Staff was directed to contact Mr. Thomas and inform him of the findings on this matter. 5. NEW BUSINESS a. Discussion regarding Commercial Truck Parking -Police Department / City Attorney City Attorney Gennarro stated that increasing the fine for commercial truck parking is within the City Council's purview. In comparison to Fresno and Sacramento, the City Attorney recommends that the City update the Municipal Code, clarify that parking penalties are no longer criminal in nature and there are civil remedies, and that the fine be increased to $100.00 or whatever amount the City Council and Legislative & Litigation Committee may decide. Committee Chair Benham questioned if there should be incremental fees. Captain Bivens stated that there is currently no database to track the number of offences. Staff was directed to submit an ordinance to the City Council proposing that the parking fine be raised to $150.00. 6. COMMITTEE COMMENTS None. 7. ADJOURNMENT The meeting adjourned at 1:15 p.m. cc: Honorable Mayor and City Council S:\Council Committees\2007\07 Legislative$LitigationWpril 10Wpril 10 Minutes.doc B A K E R S F I E L D OFFICE OF THE CITY MANAGER MEMORANDUM April 26, 2007 To: Alan Tandy, City Manager C From: .Christine Butte~eld, Assistant City Manager Referral No.001738: Marketing Benefits of City Annexation Staff surveyed a number of communities in California inquiring what steps they took to start and successfully annex unincorporated areas. Several indicated that hiring a public relations/market research firm helped in the development of an annexation message. In addition, it allowed the City to identify: support for annexation; points of opposition to annexation; and, identify the level of public understanding along with misperceptions. The City of Fontana successfully annexed 29 islands into its corporate limits. Before starting the process, Fontana hired a research firm to conduct a survey regarding annexations. Staff said this step contributed to the successful annexation of the islands. The data allowed staff to craft information that dispelled misinformation and allayed resident fears about the program. The Executive Summary is attached (i.e., see page 6 for Conclusions and Recommendations.) Also included is a list of the firms that received the RFP for Fontana's Annexation Strategy and Communication Development. The City of San Bernadino also hired a public relations firm with the same intent and successfully annexed several islands. San Bernadino is in the process of annexing 11 more. A firm designed outreach materials and organized mailings to affected residents. In addition, the consultant attended all of the community meetings. The City of San Jose developed a 21 paged Annexation Answer Book to address resident issues on the topic. This answer book is part of the City's Public Outreach Plan for Island Annexations. However, San Jose staff members were unable to identify the level of consultant support in preparation of the materials. San Jose plans to annex 50 unincorporated islands by 2010 According to City of Bakersfield staff, a marking firm surveyed resident annexation interests and concerns in the Curran area for a proposed annexation discussion (i.e., area between Highway 99 and South H Street near Valley Plaza.) The area remains unincorporated. Based upon the information collected, the City may increase the overall success of the island annexation program if a marketing/public relations firm is hired to assist in crafting the annexation message and marketing the benefits of joining the City. cbleglit050807 2 ~E~CIJT`IVE C.lMMARY Introduetian to the Study The City of Fontana commissioned Godbe Research to conduct an annexation survey. The primary objectives of the research were to: determine support for the annexation of the unincorporated areas around Fontana into the City of Fontana; identify key arguments that resonate with voters; determine the level of knowledge that unincorporated County residents have about the proposed annexation; assess City residents' opinions and awareness level on various City projects and development issues; assess City and unincorporated residents' perceptions about Fontana and San Bernardino County; and segment the data by key demographic variables to uncover the differences. In total, 400 voters from the City of Fontana as well as an additional 483 County residents were interviewed by telephone for the study. For more details on this research methodology, please see the Methodology section later in this Executive Summary. Key Findings Based on an analysis of the survey data, Godbe Research offers the following key findings to the City of Fontana: Annexation of Unincorporated Areas around Fontana The first major objective of the survey was to assess local resident opinions about annexing unincorporated County areas in and around the City of Fontana into the City. Initially, residents were asked to respond to a series of "True" or "False" statements about the proposed annexation in order to establish their level of knowledge. Some misperceptions were found among San Bernardino County residents about how they would be affected by the annexation, particularly with regard to changes in local taxes. For example, only 19 percent of respondents correctly replied "False" to the statement "Property taxes will increase for County residents if they join the City". Likewise, 69 percent of respondents replied "True" to the statement "County residents will have to pay higher utility user taxes if they join the City when it is, in fact, not true. Overall, no significant differences in the level of knowledge were found between those who live in the Western unincorporated area compared with the Island areas, although residents who had lived in the County for less D than 10 years, renters, and 18 to 29 year olds typically had more knowledge about the annexation. For example, 40 percent of respondents aged 18 to 29 fell into the "High knowledge" category compared with just ten percent of those aged 65 or over. In addition, 32 percent of those who strongly support the annexation were placed in the "High knowledge" category, compared with 12 percent of their counterparts who strongly opposed the proposals. First Ballot Test Early in the survey, both City and County residents were asked if they would support or oppose the annexation of the unincorporated areas. Support for the proposal was found to be stronger among City residents than County residents. Overall, 59 percent of City residents supported the annexation compared with 42 percent of County residents. Likewise, a higher proportion of County residents, at 38 percent, were found to "Strongly oppose" the annexation, compared with just 14 percent of the City residents. A higher percentage of those who live in the unincorporated Island areas Executive Summary "Strongly opposed" the annexation compared to those who live in the Western unincorporated area (53% vs. 32%, respectively). In addition, the survey found that a higher percentage of residents who had lived in the County for more than 10 years "Strongly opposed" the annexation compared to those with less than 10 years of residence (48% vs. 26%, respectively). Similarly, households with no children were also more likely to "Strongly oppose" the annexation than those with children (49% vs. 30%, respectively). Arguments For and Against the Annexation After the first ballot test, all respondents were given a list of positive arguments for the proposed annexation. The set of arguments was different for both types of residents, with the exception of one common question. Responses were coded according to their level of likelihood in supporting the annexation: "Much more likely" _ +2; "Somewhat more likely" _ +1; and "No effect" = 0. The responses were then aggregated to give an overall mean score. The top positive argument for annexation given by City voters was "The City will be able to apply code enforcement regulations to unincorporated areas, which will decrease litter and pollution, and improve the appearance of the community" (mean 1.34; 79% "More likely" to support), followed by "Annexing unincorporated areas 0 in and around Fontana will allow the City to improve local streets and roads and reduce traffic congestion" (mean 1.30; 76% "More likely" to support). For unincorporated County residents, the top argument was "Joining the City will cut down on illegal dumping and improve the appearance of properties in your area" (mean 1.04; 63% "More likely to support") followed by "Police protection and crime prevention services will improve because there will be more police officers in your area" (mean 1.00; 61% "More likely" to support"). Next, all respondents were given a list of negative arguments. Again, the set of arguments was different for both types of residents, with the exception of one common question. The top negative argument for City residents was, "Response times for police and fire services will worsen" (mean -0.91; 55% "More likely" to oppose), followed by "Annexing County areas in and around the City will increase local taxes" (mean -0.90; 58% "More likely" to oppose). For County residents, the top negative argument was "Joining the City will raise your property taxes" (mean -1.27; 74% "More likely" to oppose), followed by "The City has too many rules and regulations; you won't by able to do what you want with your property" (mean - 1.14; 67% "More likely" to oppose). Second Ballot Test After all the arguments were presented, both City and County residents were given the second ballot test in order to see if the positive and negative arguments had affected the level of support for the proposed annexation. One of the main findings of this second test was that support rose for both City and County residents compared to the first ballot test. For City residents, support increased by six percentage points to 65 percent while opposition fell by 13 percentage points to 27 percent. Moreover, the percentage of City voters who did not know their opinion at the first ballot test also declined after receiving more information (15% vs. 9%). For County residents, although overall support increased slightly to 43 percent (a 1% increase from the first ballot test), opposition to the annexation plans also went up Executive Summary slightly to 50 percent after receiving more information (a 2% increase from the first ballot test). The percentage of County residents who did not respond to the question decreased by three percentage points (10% vs. 7%). Among voters in Fontana, Democrat (1) and Democrat (2+) households were significantly more likely to "Strongly 0 oppose" the annexation compared to Republican (2+) households. By income category, those in the "$50,000 to $74,999" and "$100,000 or more" groups were more likely to "Strongly support" the measure than those in the "$20,000 or less" and "$75,000 to $99,999" categories. As with the first ballot test, the unincorporated Island areas were again significantly more likely to "Strongly oppose" the annexation than those in the Western areas (52% vs. 35%, respectively), and similar patterns of support were found for the various subgroups of respondents. For example, newer residents, renters, and households with children were again found to be more supportive of the proposals than their counterparts. Believability of Various People and Organizations The next question in the survey asked respondents to rate the believability of various community leaders and organizations that may take a position on the proposed measure. Again, in order to facilitate comparisons between the items, responses were recoded so that means could be calculated: 3 = "Very believable," 2 = "Somewhat believable," 1 = "Not too believable," and 0 = "Not at all believable." Respondents who had either "Never heard of" or "No opinion" of the person or organization were not included in the mean scores. According to City residents, the top five most believable people or organizations were, in rank order: "Your local firefighters," "Fontana police officers," "San Bernardino County sheriffs," "Public schoolteachers," and Fontana Chief of Police, Larry Clark." Unincorporated County residents also selected the same top five most believable people or organizations, only in a different rank order: "Your local fire fighters," "San Bernardino County sheriffs," "Public school teachers," "Fontana police officers," and "Fontana Chief of Police, Larry Clark." Resident Perceations of Fontana and San Bernardino County In addition to the questions relating to the annexation issue, the survey also asked respondents to answer questions geared towards gaining a better understanding of how City and unincorporated County residents feel about the respective areas in which they live. The issue which City resident responses provided the highest importance mean score for was "Improving police and crime prevention services," followed by "Improving and maintaining local streets and roads," and "Eliminating graffiti". By comparison, the issue that received the highest importance mean score for unincorporated County residents was "Improving and maintaining local streets and roads," followed by "Eliminating graffiti," and "Improving police and crime prevention services." So, both types of residents had the same top three community issues, but in a different rank order. 4uality of Life Overall, 52 percent of City residents replied that the quality of life in Fontana was "Getting better" compared to 45 percent of County residents. Twenty- one percent of City respondents replied that the quality of life was "Getting worse" compared to 28 percent of County respondents. Residents in the Island area indicated that the quality Executive Summary of life was "Getting worse" significantly more than those in the Western area (39% vs. 24%, respectively), while respondents who have lived in the County for less than 10 years as well as those aged 18 to 49 replied that the quality of life was "Getting better" significantly more than their counterparts. Trust As well as quality of life, City voters were asked how much they could trust the City of Fontana to do what is right. Overall, City residents were more likely to trust the City "Most of the time" than County residents (35% vs. 24%, respectively), and only three percent of City respondents trust the City "None of the time" compared to 11 percent of County residents. The survey also showed that trust is closely related to City satisfaction. That is, as trust in the City increases, so too does City satisfaction. Among the subgroups, households with children indicated a higher amount of trust than those without children living in the home. Conversely, Republican (2+) households replied that they trusted the City "None of the time" significantly more than Democrat (2+) households (9% vs. 2%, respectively). Among County residents, respondents in the Island areas trust the City "None of the time" significantly more than respondents from the Western areas (21% vs. 7%). Also, male respondents replied "None of the time" significantly more than female respondents did (14% vs. 8%). On the other hand, residents of the County for less than 10 years, those with children, and renters were significantly more likely to "Just about always" trust the City of Fontana than their counterparts. l`~J Satisfaction with City/County Respondents were also asked about their general level of satisfaction with the City or County. City residents were asked about the City of Fontana, whereas the unincorporated County residents were asked about San Bernardino County. Overall, 81 percent of City residents were at least "Somewhat satisfied" with the City of Fontana. By comparison, 70 percent of County residents were at least "Somewhat satisfied" with the performance of San Bernardino County. City residents were also less likely to be "Very dissatisfied" than the County residents (6% vs. 14% respectively). Residents in the Western unincorporated areas were slightly more likely to be satisfied with San Bernardino County than those living in the Island areas. Similarly, residents of the County for less than 10 years reported higher satisfaction with the County than long-time residents (75% vs. 67% were at least "Somewhat satisfied), while strong supporters of the annexation were "Very dissatisfied" significantly more than either potential supporters or strong non-supporters. City Projects In general, most City residents were not aware of the many projects that the City is planning to complete in the next few years. The top three City projects, in terms of awareness, were: "Building a new Fontana Library and Resource Technology Center" (52% "Yes"), and "Building new freeway interchanges at Citrus Avenue, Cherry Avenue, and Duncan Canyon Road" (52% "Yes"), followed by "Building the Heritage Community Center in North Fontana" (47% "Yes"). In addition to City Projects, City respondents were also asked about the development of apartment complexes within the City. Almost two-thirds (62%) replied that new apartment complexes should only be built "Where apartments exist" currently, whereas 28 percent believed that they should be built "In all parts of the City." Conclusions and Based on the research objectives for this study and Recommendations findings from the analyses, Godbe Research offers the following conclusions to the City of Fontana: Overall Assessment of Annexation Proposal At this time, results of the survey suggest that voters in the City will not raise strenuous objections to the proposed annexation; however, residents in "Island" annexation areas could voice enough opposition that D could impact the opinions of County property owners in the unincorporated areas to the west of the City. Certainly, results from the su~rvev indicate that 0 osition to the annexation amon County residents in the Western areas is well a ove the thres o or 2romptmg an election on the nrnnncarl annexa~c;n. Theref~re_ we recommend that the City proceed with an ag ress've informational cam ai n among Count residents in order to ispel misinformation about the proposed annexation, particularly as it relates to taxes. Furthermore, the City should focus on the benefits that come along with ioinina the City as well as how certain County land use regulations will not change for existing property owners Even with such a comprehensive effort, avoidance of an election cannot be assured. Information Messages -Overall Residents' opinions about public policy measures are often not well informed, especially when the amount of information presented to the public on a particular policy measure is limited. Without additional information about the impact of the annexation or compelling reasons to support the annexation measure, a significant percentage of residents would be reluctant to support the annexation. Even after being presented with a substantial amount of information throughout the survey process, many respondents were still hesitant to support the annexation. Indeed, the high levels of misinformation about the annexation particularly biased support for the proposal as shown by the high percentage of County residents who indicated that they would be more likely to oppose the annexation if they heard that the City would raise property taxes. Therefore, a well-funded, effective public information campaign is critical to providing County residents with the information that many require before they are willing to support the annexation. Godbe Research suggests utilizing community outreach strategies, press efforts, several direct mail pieces to likely voters, and other person-to-person campaign tactics prior to moving forward with the annexation. Below are some of the issues to focus on in an information campaign. • Communicate important information to dispel incorrect assumptions about the proposed annexation: 1. Neither property taxes nor user utility taxes for County residents will increase if the unincorporated areas are brought into the City; 2. County residents will be allowed to keep animals on their property; 3. County residents will pay lower fees at City parks and recreation facilities; and, 4. County residents will be allowed to keep septic systems that are functioning properly under current regulations. ~-~--- • Communicate those arguments that connected well with both strong and potential supporters, especially the following arguments: Executive Summary 1. "Police protection and crime prevention services will improve because there will be more police officers in your area"; 2. "Joining the City will result in improved local streets and road and reduced traffic congestion"; 3. "Joining the City will cut down on illegal dumping and improve the appearance of properties in your area"; and, 4. "Graffiti in your neighborhood will decrease since Fontana has one of the best graffiti abatement programs in the County." Because there is a strong positive relationship between trust and support for the annexation, open communication with residents will be a key component of the informational campaign. Moreover, putting forth the most trusted public officials, such as public safety officers and schoolteachers, to inform the community will also be crucial to the proposal's success. Profile of Support - CountYResidents t)nly Based on responses to both the First and Second Ballot Tests for County residents, we have created profile of most residents (425 out of 483) in the unincorporated County areas that breaks down support in the following three categories: "Strongsupport;" "Potential su ~~ opposition" (see Table 1): pport; and Strong • Strong Support -These residents supported the measure in both ballot tests and indicated `Definitely yes' in the second ballot test. We expect these residents will consistently support the measure under most conditions. • Soft Support and Potentials -These residents 0 initially supported the measure, but then indicated that they would only "probably" support the measure or did not give an opinion after receiving more information; or they initially did not indicate an opinion on the first ballot test and supported the measure later; or initially opposed the measure, but, after receiving more information, decided to support it. These residents can be influenced to support the measure, but their support is tenuous and should not be taken for granted. • Strong Opposition -These residents either definitely or probably opposed the measure in both the first and second ballot tests or initially did not give their opinion initially, but opposed the measure after receiving more information. We expect these residents will consistently oppose the measure under most conditions. 0 _ .._ _.~. ~. ~r~ _~. _rw.. w~ _ _.. m .. _._._._._..,..v... Profile i First ~elfoi Te _ __ _. Strang St~ppart __..._ _ _. ___~_ De~nit~Y y~''; 1 Prataabiy yes t ~ j E~efriiteiy yes ProbaC~ty yes Potential Support; [7a~JftiiA Defir-it~ly na ._ ~~~.. Prat~~y na Oefiniiely no Probably no :Strong Oppositian~__..v_.__ ~___._.~_,u.~._ .. _~ C?K~'N,q t~efinCeBy no From the tables glow, we cart provide the following summary of the voting profiles by aae. taender, artd nart'tsartshir~. Support is strongest amang the following yroups• • Newer residents; • 30 to 39 year olds, particularly among Republicans; • Families with children in the household; • Voters that declined to state a party preference or registered with an "Other" political party; • Residents who are dissatisfied with the County Board of Supervisors; • Residents who trust the City of Fontana to do C?efenit~iy yes PrcaMably yes st ~ Se~nndBalloiTest De~n~ely yes F'rabably yes i Qefrnit~ety yes Probably yes ©efinitaiy no Probably no /D Listing of Respondents to City of Fontana RFP for Annexation Strategy and Communications Development (Island Annexation Program) TMG Communications, Inc. 24560 Nandina Ave., Suite 7 Moreno Valley, CA 92551 Contact: Aaron Knox Phone: (951) 371-5190 Fax: (951) 371-3659 Godbe Research Contact: Josh Williams, Research Director Phone: (760) 730-2944 Cell: (650) 867-3101 TAB Communications, Inc. 3062 Yellowstone Lane Sacramento, CA 95821 Contact: T. A. Berg, President Phone: (916) 359-0783 Cell: (916) 207-6587 Fax: (916) 359-0793 Probolsky Research 23276 South Pointe Drive, Suite 206 Laguna Hills, CA 92653 Contact: Adam D. Probolsky, President Phone: (949) 855-6500 Fax: (949) 855-6405 Cell: (949) 697-6726 Public Opinion Strategies 1001 Hermosa Avenue, Suite 200 Hermosa Beach, CA 90254 Contact: Stephen M. Kinney, Partner Phone: (310) 798-3030 Fax: (310) 798-3033 KR -Kelton Research 9200 Sunset Boulevard, 4~h Floor Los Angeles, CA 90069 Contacts: Tom Bernthal or Paul Bragan Phone: (310) 479-4040 Anx Program CLH: 03/26/07 • B A K E R S E I E L D CITY MANAGER'S OFFICE MEMORANDUM May 1, 2007 TO: Alan Tandy, City Manager FROM: .Rick Kirkwood, Management Assistant SUBJECT: Plastic Bag Ban Council Referral #001742 Councilmember .Couch requested staff research the ban of plastic bags in San Francisco and other agencies for the Legislative and Litigation Committee's review of the feasibility of banning plastic retail bags in the city. The San Francisco Board of Supervisors voted 10 - 1 on March 27 in favor of becoming the first U.S. city to ban plastic bags made from petroleum products. Data shows that 180 million plastic bags were distributed by stores last year in California. It took 450,000 gallons of oil to produce those bags. The ban also mandates retailers to offer compostable, canvas, or recyclable bags to customers. The City of Berkeley is considering joining San Francisco in the ban of plastic bags. As of April 18, San Francisco's ordinance has been .referred to Berkeley's Zero Waste Commission for review. Steen Jensen, Chair of the Zero Waste Commission said, "For reaching zero waste, plastic bags are one of the big issues." The Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors is also following this issue. In September 2006, Assembly Bill 2449 (Levine) was passed. This bill will- require that by July 1, 2008, stores with more than 10,000 sq. ft. of retail space and a pharmacy will have to implement an on-site plastic bag take-back and recycling program. The goal is to encourage customers to return plastic bags to the store. The plastic bags must be collected, transported, and recycled in a manner that does not conflict with the local jurisdiction's source reduction -and recycling element. The law will allow jurisdictions to adopt and enforce a ban of plastic bags, or a local ordinance that covers all other retail stores in the community. In other areas, some retailers, such as IKEA, have begun to charge customers up to $0.05 for every plastic bag used at the checkout counter. The California Grocers Association suggests cities should educate and encourage consumers to recycle and reuse plastic bags rather than implementing a ban. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency provides the following facts about paper, plastic, and compostable bags. The cost to produce one plastic bag is $0.01, one paper bag is $0.05, and one compostable bag is $0.10. Producing one paper bag requires four times as much energy, generates seventy percent (70%) more air pollutants, and fifty (50) times more water pollutants than the production of one plastic bag. Recycling one pound of plastic requires ninety-one percent (91 %) less energy than recycling one pound of paper. Recycling efforts also become more complicated because compostable bags must be segregated from regular plastic bags. PUBLIC STATEMENTS SPEAKER'S CARD Legislative and Litigation Committee of the City Council Committee Meeting Date ~ ~ ~ ~ ~' You are invited to address the Committee under Public Statements on any subject that is listed on the Committee Agenda. Public statements are limited to three (3) minutes per speaker. The Committee may, by simple majority vote, waive the time limit. No action will be taken; this Committee gathers information and reports back to the City Council. Please fill out a Speaker's Card and present it to the Committee Chair: Councilmember Sue Benham Name: ~~~C' f~ ! ~ (.~ f ` -a ~' `R~~.k' Company/ -~ _ - r Organization: ~"~.. ~ 5 t > `a (~ (~/,~ C ((J ~ ,~ I C.'. Address: ~ l ~ ~ .~ c: ~ ~ L j ~' S % ~=~ `.~. ~ ~ •Z L, ::,,f' z l l: Phone: ~, ~ > ~ ~~" ~,~ 7 Fax/e-mail: Subject: .~`~~'~,..~..~~G ~~1...~~~r~i)`~~ C~'(-. __~ G, i LEGISLATIVE AND LITIGATION COMMITTEE Tuesday, May 8, 2007 ATTENDANCE LIST Name Organization Contact: Phone/ E-mail ~ ~,~ ~ 3~ ~ ~~ 3 ~~I~er~ ~~ ~, ~~~~~w ~ ~.~~ ~ ~; ~ ~- 5~~~ ~ ~ ~ z z -~/~ -~s ~-~, ~~ ~ ~- 3a~-~~ o~~